A convenient alliance: how does Al Gore gain?

Has Clive Palmer played Al Gore for a fool with his new climate change stance, or could it be the other way around? Sara Phillips writes.

Al Gore became the face of climate change back in 2006, when he released the documentary An Inconvenient Truth. He climbed aboard a cherry-picker to emphasise just how shocking the rise in global temperatures has been relative to the last few thousand years.

It was a ground-breaking film on a number of levels. The film was very, very effective at spreading the message about climate change. Coupled with Sir Nicholas Stern's economic report on the threat of climate change, suddenly the whole world was talking about climate change.

In Australia, one of the principle reasons for Kevin Rudd's convincing election win in 2007 was his clear commitment to action on climate change. He ratified the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gas emissions as his first order of business.

The film spawned a thousand doubting bloggers and galvanised the climate sceptics movement.

An Inconvenient Truthalso spawned a number of environmental documentaries, all hoping to have the same level of impact as the Oscar-winning doco.

And it politicised the conversation about climate change. Al Gore, former vice president of the United States and presidential candidate, is a Democrat. Republicans took the opportunity of his sudden fame to ridicule Gore and his views in order to promote themselves. In doing so, climate change and belief in the extent of its impacts became an issue of left and right.

As numerous people have noted since, there is no logical reason that concern about climate change should be a left or right issue. In the US, many of the principal laws governing environmental protection were enacted by a Republican president.

Similarly in Australia, the principal law governing environmental protection - the EPBC Act - was enacted by a Liberal government, who are roughly analogous to the US Republicans.

Our current Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, declares himself to be a conservationist because he is a conservative.

Yet, Mr Abbott is keen to dismantle the legislation currently in place that attempts to reduce Australia's climate impact. He proposes to replace the carbon tax with a Direct Action scheme. The legislation to scrap the carbon tax and the legislation to implement Direct Action have not yet passed Parliament because the Greens hold the balance of power.

That all changes on July 1, when the three Palmer United Party senators plus their block-voting pal from the Motoring Enthusiasts Party could assume the balance of power.

Clive's announcement this afternoon that he would abolish the carbon tax comes as no great surprise. As a man with mining interests and a carbon tax bill, he was never a strong supporter.

Palmer announced instead support for a new emissions trading scheme - one that would become effective once an emissions trading scheme also became effective in Australia's major trading partners.

However, the existing carbon price was going to move to an emissions trading scheme on July 1, 2015. It was going to be aligned with the European carbon trading scheme, and Europe is a significant trading partner of Australia's.

So it would seem that Palmer has proposed abolishing something that looks a lot like what he is proposing to build.

With the last iterations of Australia's climate policies having taken years to assemble and refine, there's every expectation that a new version of a climate policy would take similarly long to take shape.

Palmer's announcement looks very much like a play for time.

Which makes Al Gore's presence the most baffling thing about Mr Palmer's announcement. Mr Climate Change himself has joined with a man who seems to be delaying any action on climate change, announcing as an "extraordinary moment" in global climate change history the bid to stall Australia's nascent climate change actions.

It's undeniably a masterstroke of publicity for Mr Palmer. And perhaps that is the explanation for Mr Gore's presence. The symbolism of a major announcement is important in pushing through action on climate change. For Australia to be seen to be doing something is key to motivating other laggard countries to shift into gear at home.

Gore looks to have been played a fool by a crafty Palmer, but perhaps Gore has used his global star power to promote the fact that action on climate change is, inevitably, taking place. In Australia, and, as he outlined in his very brief speech, in China, the USA and India.

With the countdown on to further international climate change negotiations in Paris in 2015, Al Gore could be positioning Australia to be an exemplar of international climate change cooperation and action.

Whether Palmer continues to play along, however, remains to be seen.

Sara Phillips is the editor of the ABC's environmental portal, where this article was originally published. View her full profile here.

Comments (54)

Comments for this story are closed.

Dave:

26 Jun 2014 1:46:11pm

The article is correct that Palmer's announcement is a play for time. It then contradicts this suggesting that Al Gore has successfully used this opportunity to demonstrate that action is "inevitably taking place".

It's either a way of stopping action (seems likeliest given all of the caveats Clive has thrown into his scheme) or it's action (as Gore might like to hope).

Gore is going to flush his credibility if he can't explain himself over this. His political enemies will make certain of it.

Bill:

26 Jun 2014 2:54:03pm

"Gore is going to flush his credibility if he cant explain himself over this" Really? Why?How does any sane person advocate a climate change solution that is not global? That is basically the definition of the problem and anyone with 10 minutes of real world experience will work out that punishing coal burning in Australia will only see more of exported at a cheaper price to reward the countries that are permitting it.This is a sensible position for any person to take including Al Gore the champion of the movement and Palmer the big bad miner (although he doesn't operate a single mine and is more of a royalties trader than anything else).

Dave:

26 Jun 2014 3:24:08pm

"How does any sane person advocate a climate change solution that is not global?"

Perfectly reasonable statement but the reality is that there is no negotiation of a global scheme and if everyone sits back and waits for a global scheme it will never happen. That's exactly how Clive wants it, he just described it rather differently while he was standing in front of his new best mate.

Dan:

Bill:

26 Jun 2014 4:21:08pm

"there is no negotiation on a global scheme and if everyone sits back and waits it will never happen". OK so advocate for global solution, or a pathway to get to a global solution, otherwise you are doing nothing. The European ETS will never lead to a global solution because it actually rewards the countries that increase their greenhouse emissions by making coal more cheaply available than it would otherwise be. Be careful advocating for a fully market based global ETS as the environmental impacts may be worse than climate change itself if it is not properly regulated.

ajs:

26 Jun 2014 1:56:10pm

An innocent question - no undertones implied.I have heard it claimed by those questioning Al Gore's credibility that he will gain enormous financial benefit from the introduction of ETS's. I am not sure how this financial gain would come about, but I am sure that someone in this blog will be able to enlighten me as to the voracity of these claims.Thanks in advance

Duniya:

slow eddie:

27 Jun 2014 9:36:56am

In a perfect world, companies would pay their fair share of tax.However, an article today by Michael West "Glencore tax bill on $15b income: zip, zilch, zero" should tell Australians all they need to know about how governments treat big companies:"Australia's largest coalminer, Glencore, paid almost zero tax over the past three years, despite income of $15 billion, as it radically reduced its tax exposure by taking large, unnecessarily expensive loans from its associates overseas."

Given the history of ETS in Europe, in particular tax fraud (recent German case in 2011 where "value-added-tax fraud in the trade of carbon-dioxide emissions has deprived the German state of about Euro 850 million ($1.19 billion)", it is likely the same will happen here.

I imagine our department architects are now busy modelling how best to allocate free permits to the largest polluters so they reap the windfalls.Once again, the public pays.

Ayjay:

One thing is for sure...Clive Palmer definitely has a vested interest in pushing for an ETS instead of a carbon tax.

The biggest difference is that the carbon tax costs CO2 emitting companies more. ($24.15 per tonne of CO2 emitted, as opposed to around $6 per tonne.)

That?s a good thing. If we cut it, we?ll remove a proven effective disincentive to pollute, and we?ll also lose around $7.6 billion per year in government revenue.

The government is spreading fear about job and investment losses if we keep a carbon tax.

In fact, automation is what is causing a lot of job losses in industries, along with the high Aussie dollar and overseas deflation.

The Coalition are also telling us that cutting the mining tax will be a saving to the economy of $13.8 billion. This is totally misleading. The mining tax is set to make $3.4 billion over the four years of the forward estimates.

The $13.8 billion figure is not from scrapping the mining tax alone. It includes abolishing eight spending measures, the largest of which was never associated with the mining tax. That being the School Kids Bonus costing $5.2 billion.

They are very creative with their figures.

The public is being duped big time.

Welfare nation? Listen to Peter Costello in 2007...'under the changes of this government, something like 60 per cent of Australian families are paying no net tax.' Costello was proud of that achievement. It was good for families he said.

So why do we get told that 48% of families paying no net tax now is a terrible thing, inflicted on us by the supposedly incompetent Labor government? Labor reduced the figure!

Theos:

26 Jun 2014 2:42:21pm

It is true that there were some errors and overstatements in the film. However, none of them changes the fact that the within the peer-reviewed scientific literature, the issue is settled. There is (and will always be) discussion regarding various details, and similarly, there will be debate regarding the strengths and weaknesses of various climate models and their predictions. But as to the FACT of human induced climate change, there is no scientific debate.

AJC:

26 Jun 2014 5:24:01pm

Actually, regardless of how many times the silly lie is repeated, the issue is not "settled". It never was, and the "97%" lie began with a student's paper that wasn't particularly scientific, and was easily refuted, yet was waved around as a proclamation of truth by those wanted to use the lie for political purposes. Just like the Dodgy Dossier in that respect. Astonishing how often so many people fall for distortions and propaganda like that. Part of the reason, I guess, is that they're assuming that if the "line" is coming with the right thin veneer of paint (green, red, blue... whatever) it couldn't possibly be just propaganda. Put together a few like-minded "experts" in a new organisation, give that organisation a nice sounding name, and keep pretending that it's unbiased, and lots of gullible people will not only believe the lie, they'll defend those lies by attacking anyone and everyone who might bring the narrative into question.

There's always scientific debate, it never stops. When someone says it's "settled science", they're repeating propaganda like a well trained parrot. Real scientists question everything, that's how scientific knowledge is furthered. The Big Bang, Black Holes, how Gravity functions, how genes work, there are No Sacred Cows to a real scientist.To say something requires no further debate is the sort of words spouted by politicians pushing a story when the evidence is starting to come out and unravel their lies. Instead of properly dealing with the truth, they'll repeat the lie louder, and call the other side names. Lots of mud throwing goes on.

The science is not "settled", there's no "consensus", and never was. Next time someone tells you that there's a consensus, you'll hopefully choose to take some salt with their BS.

Theos:

26 Jun 2014 6:24:35pm

AJC - You are either being deliberately misleading or you are seriously misinformed. According to NASA, "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities". Should I believe NASA, or should I believe you? You talk about "distortions and propaganda", but your post is nothing but distortions and propaganda. Your post completely misrepresents the view of the scientific community on this issue. There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one. There are, of course, politicians, bloggers and miscellaneous keyboard warriors who deny the scientific consensus, but within the peer reviewed scientific literature, there is no longer any debate of the fact of human induced climate change.

Scientists are some of the most intelligent, honest and independent thinking people on the planet. For your ridiculous assertions to be true, there needs to be a massive global conspiracy between hundreds of thousands of scientists to intentionally promote false views. This is beyond absurd and extremely insulting to the those scientists who pride themselves in their intellectual honesty. Have you ever met a scientist?

Next, you demonstrate complete ignorance on the way science works. Contrary to your unsubstantiated assertions, there are a great many things in which the science is well and truly settled. For example, the shape of our planet is approximately spherical, a water molecule consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atoms, humans and chimpanzees share a recent common ancestor. "Real scientists" do NOT questions these facts - they do NOT "question everything". To question things that are established beyond reasonable doubt is pointless and a waste of resources. On many thousands of issues, the science is absolutely and completely "settled" and anyone trying to suggest otherwise would be not be taken seriously in any adult conversation.

Obviously there are a great many issues in which there is still much to learn, and many scientific issues where there is still robust and ongoing debate. However, the fact of Human induced climate change is not one of those.

Theos:

27 Jun 2014 8:18:36am

Even - you've listed a couple of dozen names of people (I'm assuming scientists) who in your view deny climate change exists - or perhaps human activity plays no part in causing that change. Later today, I will google each of those names that you've cut 'n pasted to check what their qualifications actually are and what their stated views are. (Excuse my skepticism, but I've seen lists before of scientists who allegedly believe a thing, but upon closer scrutiny, it turns out that some of them have had their views misrepresented). But, for now, I'll assume you are right.

My reply is "Big Deal". A scientific consensus does not need to be (and almost never is) unanimous. I've heard medical doctors testify that smoking isn't bad for a person's health. A better example is creationism. There are hundreds of people with legitimate advanced scientific qualifications (including PhDs) who believe the earth is 6,000 years old.

The issue is not what a few dozen or even a few hundred dissenters, deniers or extremists think. It is the view that the relevant section of the scientific community has been compelled to form due to the weight of the evidence.

There is no debate in the scientific literature regarding the fact that the climate is changing and human activity has significantly contributed to it. That issue is settled. Any remaining debate is regarding the details or the modelling.

Describing scientists as "alarmists" and claiming they lack courage to "debate" deniers is utterly ridiculous. If the deniers had a valid scientific argument or evidence - they could publish their views in the peer-reviewed scientific literature (unless you are hypothesising a massive global conspiracy amongst scientists to eliminate opposing opinion)

Apolitical Man:

Spencer is a signatory to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming - which holds as doctrine that God created the world perfectly to be self-sustaining and self-correcting.

That Spencer holds that view as a matter of faith (belief without proof) is great - I am all for religious freedom.

However his faith is a factor that MAY be influencing the hypotheses he chooses to investigate, the scope and design of his tests, the extrapolation of his data and the communication of his findings.

This is why peer review processes are important (though not by any means a panacea).

So it is interesting to note that the editor of Remote Sensing, the journal that published Spencer's "On the Misdiagnosis of Climate Feedbacks from Variations in Earth's Radiant Energy Balance", resigned over the publication of the paper because the review process missed "that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents". The editor believed the paper was fundamentally flawed and wrongly accepted by the journal.

CONSENSUS:

There is no doubt that the list of climate scientists who are concerned about climate change is many time larger than the list of those who are not concerned about it.

The fact is that there is overwhelming but NOT universal consensus that human activity is warming the Earth and that there are potentially serious consequences arising from global warming.

Overstating the consensus is counter-productive to human advancement generally and for those who believe that climate change needs to be addressed, it is one of the worst things that you can do.

Denying the presence of doubters in the scientific community makes it too easy for people to tear holes in your argument - not with scientific argument - just with the fact that you are a "minority view denier".

DEBATE:

Clearly there is debate. There are people publishing views contrary to the consensus.

Once again claiming there is no debate, shifts the argument away from evaluating the veracity of alternate views into claims of conspiracy. It doesn't help anyone.

MINORITY VIEWS:

The fact is that the minority view is critically important to the advancement of science. I wonder whether there is any important scientific discovery that started with a majority of scientists holding the same view. I doubt it.

In respect of climate change. Prior to the 1800s there is no evidence that science even considered the concept that humans could change the climate. The first paper mentioning this possibility was written in 1827 and the science was really only advanced any further in 1864. No-one tried to measure the effect until 1896 and it wasn't until the 1980's that consensus started to form that there could be a pro

AJC:

26 Jun 2014 9:26:11pm

I believe that it's you, Theos, who is seriously lacking research on the subject, perhaps relying too much on the same sources that have been exposed as getting the science continually wrong in the past.

Scientists aren't angels, they certainly aren't any less prone to unethical, dishonest, irrational behaviour than humans generally are. I don't wear rose tinted glasses while seeing a scientist and think "Hey, that person would never ever lie or be a crook" because such thinking is childish. Children grow up, and one of the realisations that they come to, is that adults aren't particularly more or less honest than themselves. Your silly dismissal by claiming a "conspiracy of thousands" is just another one of those unfortunately common arguments that don't refute a thing, nor are supported by anything, it's just someone trying to play strawman games because they can't accept any facts that contradict their prior assumptions. By the way, it's plainly delusional to believe that conspiracies don't occur; read history, read the laws regarding conspiracy, read about organised crime groups, intelligence agencies, lobby groups, ideologically-driven protest groups, the huge number of scientific frauds exposed (increasingly, unfortunately) that involved large numbers of scientists, read about the dodgy "science" sponsored by the tobacco lobby or any big corporation or government. This is not a fluffy world filled with pink cotton candy and cute teddy bears, nasty unethical people will lie to you, and they will use their positions of influence to take advantage whenever they can.

No, the shape of our planet is not actually spherical, the southern hemisphere swells out a bit. You should also read more about "heavy water" and it's variations. I strongly suggest that you search out Sheldrake's "The Science Delusion", it's quite enlightening how many assumptions are accepted without being supported by solid research in science. Yes, real scientists DO question everything, because if they didn't, we'd still be stuck with steam engines and Lord Kelvin's idea that the Sun is only 100 million years old.

Back on topic, AGW and the blaming of CO2 are among those subjects which are most definitely NOT "settled science". You appear to believe that the constant refrain of it being "settled" is going to make it so, but that's a propaganda technique. Like Hitler's "Big Lie". Tell it enough times, people may start to abandon commonsense and doubts, begin to believe the BS anyway.

Stan:

26 Jun 2014 8:23:28pm

So you are happy if it was NASA that made it up? Being a scientist myself I am happy that you think they "...are some of the most intelligent, honest and independent thinking people on the planet."However as a scientist I don't necessarily share your blind faith that they can do no wrong and there is no need to invent conspiracy when incompetence explains a lot. You will now probably quote peer review as sorting this out, however this also is not without failure with numerous examples in all areas of science.

Ayjay:

26 Jun 2014 9:03:04pm

AJC,

I agree with Theos' reply to your comment.

Also, people are under the misconception that there is no financial gain to made in causing confusion and non-action over climate change. I wonder why Liberal insider Guy Pearce felt the need to expose collaboration between the fossil fuel industry and the Howard government at the time? A powerful industry group calling themselves the 'mafia' hijacked government environmental policy back then.

An interesting and eye opening book on the topic is "Scorcher" by Clive Hamilton. Or look up "Greenhouse mafia".

And it seems the media and other groups have been as successful in confusing people about climate science as they have convincing people since before the election of a debt crisis/ budget emergency.

Commercial media are falling back to all the old fear and misinformation campaigns used during the Howard era. Boat people, terrorists, communists etc. Now also adding leftist activists, greenies, extremists, alarmists...the -ists are never ending.

stalga:

Theos:

26 Jun 2014 2:16:08pm

I was surprised to see Mr Gore standing beside Mr Palmer at yesterday's announcement. One good thing to come from Mr Palmer's announcement is the fact that it now seems very unlikely that the "direct action" policy will eventuate. Instead, it appears that we will retain a market based mechanism for encouraging the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions. I suspect that Malcolm Turnbull was particularly pleased at yesterday's announcement.

susanne:

26 Jun 2014 2:48:04pm

I think you have misheard - we are not retaining anything. Repeal of the carbon tax is not conditional upon any ETS scheme. Clive basically said cut the carbon tax, cut direct action, have a nil useless ETS. Basically - have nothing!! retaining the schemes is just his olive branch to the left. Clive wants everyone to love him, afterall!

Dan:

26 Jun 2014 4:10:42pm

Peter Greste wants everyone to keep talking about him, not only so that his brutal conviction can be overturned, but so the Egyptian Government doesn't kill him in prison. He expressed that to his brothers who have passed it on to the Australian public.

I'd like to see an Egyptian boycott, both trade wise and diplomatically.

Ayjay:

26 Jun 2014 9:41:49pm

How has our carbon tax hamstrung business?

It encourages innovation and investment in renewable energy, a sector which is growing and creating jobs in itself. At the same time as helping Australia reduce CO2 emissions....something we are required to do anyway.

Pressure from the fossil fuel industries is keeping us in the 20th century. The CSIRO has developed solar thermal technology which is a viable source of base-load power generation. Money won't be put into new technologies like this unless there is a price on CO2 emissions.

Our carbon tax was set to change to an ETS next year anyway.

Clive Palmer's plan leaves us with no incentive for the big companies to reduce CO2 emissions.

Ted:

26 Jun 2014 4:06:16pm

So climate change became an issue of left and right because of the Republicans. That makes sense to me. Republicans and others of the far right have no brains, a prerequisite for all denialists to dismiss the mounting evidence that climate change is real. It all fits.

All we need now is for someone, or Gore himself, to explain why the two of them appeared together on stage. As Clive has already wimped out of the new ETS, maybe even Gore does not know.

Torch:

26 Jun 2014 6:24:25pm

'So climate change became an issue of left and right because of the Republicans. That makes sense to me. Republicans and others of the far right have no brains, a prerequisite for all denialists to dismiss the mounting evidence that climate change is real. It all fits.'

Because Ted, you are the fount of all knowledge? Lol it is to laugh.....

Fiona:

26 Jun 2014 4:13:23pm

Just think, Palmer has billions tied up in the coal industry. China is a major buyer of coal from Australia. China (and the US) are moving to an ETS. What's to stop China from saying (privately) that it will soon only buy coal from other countries with an ETS - with US support for that as it consolidates their ETS as well, handy with the Republicans there being as they are? Hence Al Gore's support. Or maybe I'm being overly suspicious, who knows!

Morestone:

26 Jun 2014 6:59:07pm

Clive doesn't mine one gram of anything. He is essentially a landlord (rentseeker) and has a proposal for mining a low grade thermal coal (of which there is currently oversupply) from some of his tenements in Qld. The project is a long way from actually putting anything on a ship and would need a lot of cash from backers.

Lorenzo:

26 Jun 2014 4:17:30pm

Lets be real - Gore makes money out of climate change promotion. I suspect this will disappoint many of the inner urban climate change fraternity - but Gore charges a huge fee and like most speakers he is for hire. Stop painting him as someone with special values and insights - its his business enterprise and will stand next to most people if the price is right. I suspect his fee is about as large as his carbon footprint!

The munz:

26 Jun 2014 4:56:09pm

I suspect that rural communities are far more aware and concerned about global warming than urban dwellers. In any case, with approximately 70% of all voters concerned then Mr Gore's activities are in line with broad community values.

anote:

26 Jun 2014 4:18:43pm

"... there is no logical reason that concern about climate change should be a left or right issue ..." but there is a logical explanation as to why the Coalition and Republicans have resisted doing anything about it.

As it is Palmer has not committed to an ETS in substance. If he supports the bill to remove the 'carbon tax' before instating a trustworthy and substantial commitment to an ETS then he is playing the public for fools (meaning a lawfully binding commitment of government). So far, that appears to be his plan.

ltfc1:

26 Jun 2014 5:53:38pm

There's nothing like watching a champion of the environment being condemned for siding with a billionaire mining magnate just because the two of them reached an agreement of sorts. Shame on the environmentalists for being so quick to condemn a person who has given the world so much of himself for his beloved environment. Milne and the Greens have made it clear discussion with Abbott is off the agenda but Al Gore has gained a valuable ally in Palmer and the reverse is true and Abbott without lifting a finger wins the battle of the Carbon Tax. Next on the hit list will be the mining tax and that will almost certainly be Palmer's coup de grace because the government now owes him one free turn, so to speak.

stalga:

26 Jun 2014 11:14:44pm

For the Greens it is a case of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'. Things were looking very grim prior to this announcement as Abbott was going to dismantle everything and put in his token direct action plan. The big one is now on hold/up in the air as Sarah points out, but other things have been saved and direct action vetoed. Anything is better than nothing, the rot has been stopped and we begin to head in a positive direction again. Glass half full.

Having said that I believe your prediction may be bang on, Palmer hates the mining tax. I hope no one here forms the opinion that I like Palmer, far from it.

Reinhard:

26 Jun 2014 6:14:02pm

It's a win win for Gore, on the world stage he has claimed a victory for carbon pricing,.Apart from Clive's idiotic photo-bombing during Gore's speech, only Australians will truly appreciate how stupid Gore looked teaming up with Captain Clive.

prison:

26 Jun 2014 10:23:40pm

Even though they denied paying him to come over, who cares if he was paid?. Surely all of the champions of the free market system would appreciate his initiative to turn it into a money spinner while also apparently selling a message that he believes in.

What I do object to is the wholesale corruption of our Liberal party which bases its policy not from the public, but from these large multinationals who are set to profit from the denial of climate science and from a dated ideology which causes the poor to suffer and the rich profit.. we need to outlaw this influence and remove the cancer in our political system before we end up permenantly like the US. (not a good thing)

stalga:

26 Jun 2014 11:34:33pm

Al Gore has been out out here hosting a training course in Melbourne as part of the ongoing worldwide education campaign he is involved in. The retired head of the Australian Conservation Foundation, Don Henry decided to ask Palmer if he would like to meet Gore.when Gore asked we there any influential Aussies that may wish to talk with him. Don Henry says he didn't expect Palmer to accept the invitation.

Troy T:

26 Jun 2014 8:46:53pm

I agree Sarah; I am also flabbergasted how someone of Clive Palmers reputation for irrationality, inconsistence and environmental vandalism, could persuade Mr. Environment himself, who contributed so much (and benefited from) for the climate change, to share the same platform?!

One would expect that Al Gore would be considerably smarter than the average Australian voter or the Canberra Press Gallery.

I must admit I could not stop laughing when I saw the two 'citizens of the world' on the same stage and how much Clive Palmer revels in the publicity and his personal importance. This guy does not live in the real world.

Rob White:

26 Jun 2014 11:22:58pm

Mr Gore, are you not a huge community polluter? Do you not own a huge property that exists on numerous pollutants? Then if you do (and I think you do) why are you preaching your " Inconvenient Truth"? Seems to me you are hoping to add to your overflowing coffers.

Tax the churches:

27 Jun 2014 4:27:39am

Born again environmentalists?

There is no doubt, Mr Palmer is a clever man and he plays the game as it suits him best - in the moment. That he laughed at the fools who fell for his extraordinary claim about The Greens being financed by the CIA is cause for concern. Ergo, who is to know if he really means what he says?

Have I missed something? Al Gore was US vice-president for eight years, but I am not aware of him making much of his high position then to advance environmental issues.

What I am aware of is that his wife, Tipper Gore, was instrumental in establishing a prudish lobby group. They were partly successful in curbing artistic expressions by way of compulsory warning stickers attached to some works.

Am I alone in lacking much enthusiasm about these prominent characters now standing shoulder to shoulder?

JILL C:

27 Jun 2014 12:58:41pm

No, you are not alone, this is just another convenient stunt, that will achieve what?? A few headlines?? And just proves that these so called Environmental Crusaders, will get into bed with anyone for a bit of cheap publicity, more to promote themselves than the "Cause".

Agemegos:

27 Jun 2014 3:41:09pm

I'm a bit startled by the assertion that global climate change didn't become a matter of Left and Right until 2007. My memory may be drifting to starboard, but I have a distinct impression that it was already that in 1996.

Lord Kelvin:

27 Jun 2014 3:45:01pm

As I read it:

Al Gore was dismayed by Australia's complete abandonment of CO2 abatement measures. By negotiating with Clive, he has saved a couple of pieces of furniture. On the basis that something is better than nothing, this was worth it from Gore's point of view.

Clive was always enthusiastic about getting rid of the carbon price. He's also keen to cause awkwardness in the lives of his former LNP mates. This move tick both boxes. The RET, which was about to be shot, has been saved for the moment. Mr. Gore has provided some cover of respectability. Win - win for Clive. Slight win for Gore. Slight loss for the Government.

Rich J:

27 Jun 2014 3:57:27pm

I find it hard to believe that the wool could be pulled over Gore's eyes. He's also a multi millionaire who is not stupid.

It takes a clever politician and a lot of money to scale the heights of United States politics and climb to the (almost) top. Someone that clever and rich is hardly likely to be getting duped by the likes of Clive Palmer.